翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Arje Shaw
・ Arjei Franklin
・ ARJEL
・ Arjen
・ Arjen Anthony Lucassen
・ Arjen Anthony Lucassen discography
・ Arjen Arî
・ Arjen de Wolff
・ Arjen Hagenauw
・ Arjen Lenstra
・ Arjen Lubach
・ Arjen Robben
・ Arizona v. Evans
・ Arizona v. Fulminante
・ Arizona v. Gant
Arizona v. Hicks
・ Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
・ Arizona v. Johnson
・ Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society
・ Arizona v. New Mexico
・ Arizona v. United States
・ Arizona v. Youngblood
・ Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum
・ Arizona Village, Arizona
・ Arizona Western College
・ Arizona Whirlwind
・ Arizona Wildcats
・ Arizona Wildcats baseball
・ Arizona Wildcats football
・ Arizona Wildcats football series records


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Arizona v. Hicks : ウィキペディア英語版
Arizona v. Hicks

''Arizona v. Hicks'', , held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view.
==Facts==
On April 18, 1984, a bullet was fired through the floor of Hicks' apartment, striking and injuring a man in the apartment below. The police arrived and entered Hicks' apartment to search for the shooter, for other victims, and for weapons. While in Hicks's apartment, one of the officers noticed two sets of expensive-looking stereo equipment, "which seemed out of place in the squalid and otherwise ill-appointed four-room apartment." The officer moved the equipment to record the serial numbers, suspecting that the equipment was stolen, and then reported the serial numbers to police headquarters. The officer was informed that the equipment had been taken in an armed robbery, for which Hicks was later indicted.
The state trial court granted Hicks' motion to suppress the stereo equipment, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. It was conceded that the police's initial entry into Hicks' apartment was lawful, although it took place without a warrant, because of the emergency created by the shooting. But moving the stereo equipment was an additional search, the appellate court reasoned, which lacked a warrant and was unrelated to the purpose the police were in Hicks' apartment to begin with. The appellate court therefore found that the police's actions violated the Fourth Amendment, and affirmed the trial court's granting of the motion to suppress. The Arizona Supreme Court declined the State's request to review the case, but the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to do so.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Arizona v. Hicks」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.